Pac-12 Requires 6 Wins To Play In Bowl

The Conference of Champions passed a rule that requires teams to win at least six regular-season games to play in a bowl.

That would eliminate 5-7 teams from going to a bowl when there are not enough six-win teams nationally to fill the bowls.

The Pac-12 presidents approved the proposal and there is no word if USC president Max Nikias voted.

This is a double-edged sword: It is a little suspect to let a 5-7 team play in a bowl but . . . this means the Pac-12 is depriving a team of valuable bowl practices. And it takes away national airtime from a Pac-12 school. Some schools probably liked the proposal because it means they don’t have to pay a bowl bonus to a coach who goes 5-7.

Ask yourself this question: Would the SEC do this?

That’s the gold standard of conferences after all and they always put football first. I bet the SEC will be happy to fill any spots the Pac-12 gives away.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

10 thoughts on “Pac-12 Requires 6 Wins To Play In Bowl”

Not o be outdone, the sec has passed a resolution that bama only needed 5 wins to qualify for the CFB playoffs, and winning the conference or division didn’t matter any longer…unless, of course, nicky saban said so.

I like the new SEC Rule, Pudly —–it gives Alabama players a chance to begin resting up for the playoffs in early October. After all the scrutiny the NCAA has put their program through recently (i.e., none) , they deserve an extra break.
But enough about the SEC. This 6 Win Rule isn’t fair to UCLA. If the Pac 12 could just see clear to shave one or two wins from their bowl eligibility rules, they could ensure Chip’s program is a success for years to come.

Yea, playing vs all those D2 AA is really taxing. Here’s a fun fact; in the five years prior to little nicky coming to bama, they played auburn and LSU in successive weeks, in nine of the eleven years since sabans arrival, they have had a bye before LSU and played a patsy prior to auburn. That’s working your conference, and your conference protecting its money maker…

Cry me a river you loser. Do you sell high grade gas at Pudly 76?
Not to be outdone, any team that loses to the
Crimson Tide by 46 pts. and gives up over 50 should be banned from
any Bowl game including the Cotton or worse the Toilet Bowl. Roll Tide!

Ah, poor little guy hurt himself? How many other conferences get their second place divisional losers into the playoffs except the secspn little darlings and little nicky? If Helton didn’t play Tua all year and most of the game there’d have been hell to pay, if he’d blown his timeouts against Auburn you all would cry like the little full of …you are. Pack it up and stay home..

Bama should have been banned for say about, 40 years from the bowl games from all of the payoffs the boosters have done with the players. Way to go, bama cried themselves a river last year to get into the playoffs even though they did not win their league or the title game. Let me ask you a question Steve, what is the minimum payout for a booster to pay a player after the game? Is it $50, $100, $200, or more? But the ncaa looks past this, always, they don’t want to hurt the inbreeding between the ncaa and the sec. Get out a’ here you sec honk.

For some (I’m sure very good) reason) —I’m not being allowed to register “likes” this morning. WTF?! But rest assured— if I could, I’d be showing my support, my brother.
The thing the Bama fans don’t want to get is that, but for the bullshit sanctions, USC would have developed into such a monster that every year would end with us thumping the winner of the SEC (i.e., Alabama).
If McNair’s lawyer had not forced the jury into an ‘all or nothing’ verdict by dropping the negligence counts, we’d —at least — have a court finding to point to on the score of how seriously we got jobbed by the NCAA. As it turns out —-in spite of some otherwise brilliant work by McNair’s lawyer —-we got cheated out of that too.